This week's column at CAIVN takes a look at the growing pressure for open primaries in Pennsylvania. Some excerpts:

With abysmally low voter turnout in the closed primary elections held earlier this month in Pennsylvania, pressure is mounting to open the process to Independents. On May 17th, Pennsylvania voters headed to the polls to cast their ballots in primary elections for county and municipal offices, school boards and judges. Or rather, more precisely, voters didn’t head to the polls to cast their ballots in the state’s primary elections. As local Patch columnist Tom De Martini wrote reflecting on the returns: “Primary voter turnout is usually low, but Tuesday's showing at the polls was one of the worst I can recall since I starting casting ballots in 1979.” One local CBS News affiliate felt it necessary to emphasize that, despite the low turnout, the results still count: “low voter turnout was the theme for the day, even though a few key races were up for decision. A whopping 80 percent of voters bypassed the election, but the results still count.”

Pennsylvania is one of twenty states in which Independents and third party voters are prohibited from casting a ballot in the Republican and Democratic party primaries, according to a tally by The Center for Voting and Democracy. Roughly one million Pennsylvanians, about one in eight voters, are not affiliated with any party or are registered with a third party. The abysmal showing in the primary elections by the state’s Democrats and Republicans is leading to increased calls for open primaries . . .

When faced with criticism of the closed primary system, its supporters in the Democratic and Republican parties often reply by stating that if Independents desire to vote in the primary elections, they can simply change their affiliation. Independents respond by pointing out that if the Democratic and Republican parties want publicly funded primary elections, these elections should not be effectively closed to the public . . .

The problem posed by Pennsylvania’s closed primary system is exacerbated by the fact that candidates for local and state offices often cross-file in both the Republican and Democratic primary elections, which can easily result in uncontested general election races . . .

Perhaps one might argue that if Independent Pennsylvanians are so frustrated with the Democratic and Republican parties, they can register their discontent by voting for Independent or third party candidates in the general election. But Democratic and Republican party activists work tirelessly to ensure that such candidates do not appear on the ballot . . .

5 comments:

There's some historic irony to this. Direct primaries were advocated 100 years ago as a democratic reform that would enable opponents to party leaders to appeal to the rank and file, as opposed to the convention system that was perceived to guarantee victory to the bosses' candidates. Apathy has too often brought about the same result that direct primaries were instituted to prevent. Meanwhile, independents clamor for the right to have some say in who ends up on the general election ballot, even if that means having to choose a least evil among Democrats or Republicans. The real problem is the ballot and the governing parties' ability to dictate the terms of access to it, and the solution may have less to do with liberalizing ballot access than with coming up with a 21st century alternative to the ballot as we know it.

I've looked a little bit into the history of the institution of the primary over the last year or so. Given that it was one of the major achievements of the early 20th century progressive movement, I'm sometimes surprised by the fact that there isn't more criticism of it by the likes of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh, and various tea party groups. Ironically, they are some of the strongest supporters of primaries. Maybe they just don't know that it's part of the progressive legacy?

>I'm sometimes surprised by the fact that there isn't more criticism of it by the likes of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh, and various tea party groups.<

Well Glenn Beck some time ago was touting public libraries and their infrastructure as an alternative to "public universities", yet was seemingly oblivious of how they were a major victory (or rather their proliferation thereof nation wise) of the progressive movement of the early 1900s he lambastes so much. So probably unaware...

@Wilson

>than with coming up with a 21st century alternative to the ballot as we know it.<